Balls of steel. Never have I seen bullshit so artfully woven.
Cheers.
Let's summarize where we stand so far in a shorthand example: Me: I think my kids should go to school. [...]
You're revising after the fact again, and trying to disguise it beneath an analogy. We are talking about the ethics of hunting, not education. Here is what you said, in black and white... there's no changing it now:
"Logically sound - There are some for whom hunting is a positive, fulfilling, responsible activity, and there are some for whom hunting is childish barbarity."
Now you can more accurately go on with:
You: I think school is reasonable for those who cannot provide any other means of care or education for their children. Therefore...
Me: Hold on a second. School may be a good thing even if other choices are available.
Taking it out of analogy form and back to the original argument, we have me saying (these are quotations) that 'hunting responsibly for the sole purpose of feeding his family' is reasonable, and you replying that '[hunting] may be a good thing even if other choices are available'. Agreed?
I have had sufficient training to recognize ad hominem when I see it, and to know that such attacks are always launched from a position of weakness.
Odd, then, that attack me in just such a manner with your 'never have I seen bullshit so artfully woven' comment, rather than arguing your position. At any rate, I understand that your person does not affect the validity of your argument. That's cool. But you were the person who demanded logical rigour in the first place, and it's a bit hard for me to demonstrate it to you when you aren't familiar with the jargon and maths. Especially when you use words like 'inverse' and 'straw man' that have a very specific meanings. Again, I acknowledge that that doesn't invalidate any argument you may have.
Your core retort depended upon my assumption of responsibility for your words, or to put it simply, attributing statements to me which I did not in fact say. Your ad hominem rider cited instances of my use of certain terms, including 'equivocation', which I did not in fact use.
Let's look at the context in which I used that word:
Me: "The clues you missed in my original post are equivocations like 'majority of' and 'in my experience'".
You: "Okay, let's look for those in your conclusion"
Me: (quoting) "Okay, let's look for [equivocations] in your conclusion"
I trust you will agree that the subject of our exchange was equivocation? I put the word in brackets to indicate that I was replacing the (non context-free) pronoun with the noun to which it referred. The only other noun 'those' could have indicated was 'clues', which has the same meaning in the context (i.e. clues revealing the presence of equivocation).
You wouldn't want the discussion to descend into an evaluation of your reading comprehension skills.
Is that another veiled ad hominem I detect? Let me respond in kind. Yeah, I'd look like I real idiot if I didn't understand that unmodified pronouns implicitly denote the subject of the conversation.
Right, now back to the questions still unanswered:
The hunters I have described may not represent most or even many hunters. This is true but does not invalidate my counterexample. True or false?
My statements require a rigorous logical proof, but the original poster's do not. Why?
And now to the argument at hand, which I understand currently to be '[hunting] may be a good thing even if other choices are available'. Please correct this or subsititute it with an argument of your choice if I have it wrong.
I think that if hunting is not required to support / protect life (and it rarely is), then shooting a non-threatening animal is needlessly cruel (or barbaric as I put i
Sure, that's almost certainly correct, however that doesn't have all that much bearing on the food chain argument. I'd say that if you look at humans as a society, we can eat whatever we choose pretty much, so that puts us at the top of the food chain.
Okay, conceded.
This may be true [hunting as an indulgence of barbarism] - but so what? People need outlets. I program computers, or whatever. Other people may go hunting. I don't see that as a bad thing.
I think hunting and (recreational) coding are scratching two different itches: bloodlust and creativity respectively. Further, coding is bereft of lethal cruelty whereas hunting, perhaps, is not.
Of course, whether sport hunting is cruel is opinion and debatable. However, given that skeet-shooting, target shooting, biathlon, paintball etc are sports undisputably lacking in lethal cruelty, there are alternatives for the sporting shooter who wants to relax of a weekend. Likewise, if agression must be indulged there are consensual contact sports such as boxing.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that there are non-contentious outlets for people who need them.
Don't forget, your sample is self-selecting. The 'proper' hunters don't litter, don't shoot roadsigns, and so on. The ones you see are the ones who bring themselves to your attention by being annoying.
That makes sense, but it's far from the spirit warrior description of hunting made by the original poster. It's then an argument of quantification: how many hunters are responsible and how many are not? What are their reasons for hunting? And so on. The point being that the OP's definition of hunting does not cover all hunters, and IMO probably doesn't even cover most.
The claim your premise presumes, that hunting is only reasonable if necessary to maintain human life, is not proved.
That's not what I said. Read my post again. Someone hunting to feed his family is an example of responsible hunting that I gave in support of your comment that 'there are some for whom hunting is a positive, fulfilling, responsible activity, and there are some for whom hunting is childish barbarity' is a logically sound argument. You offered a reasonable argument. I agreed, and now you attack the argument as unreasonable. Make up your mind.
You reconstructed a new argument based on that premise, and attacked its inverse (those not hunting out of direct need for food are unreasonable). Ergo, straw man, again. Sigh indeed.
No. You offered p V q as a logical argument. I agreed. You then switched to arguing against q->~p. There's your straw man. Incidentally, the inverse of 'hunters are either responsible or barbaric' is 'hunters are neither responsible nor barbaric'.
Okay, let's look for [equivocations] in your conclusion
The first two words: 'I think'. It's an opinion not a proof.
Now it's time for you to respond to the points that you have been unable to answer so far:
The hunters I have described may not represent most or even many hunters. This is true but does not invalidate my counterexample. True or false?
My statements require a rigorous logical proof, but the original poster's do not. Why?
You use the words 'inverse', 'counterexample', 'proof', 'premise', 'straw man', 'equivocation', 'argument' and 'logically sound' withoput understanding their formal meanings. You have had no academic training in the field of logic. True or false?
Logically sound - There are some for whom hunting is a positive, fulfilling, responsible activity, and there are some for whom hunting is childish barbarity.
That seems reasonable, but I have yet to see an example of the former. The form is sound (p V q), but none one in this thread has actually used that argument until now. I'm sure there's someone living in a remote area hunting responsibly for the sole purpose of feeding his family, but I'm equally sure that that person is in the tiny minority.
Logically unsound - No, all hunters are childish barbarians.
Again, the form is logically sound (p->q), and again, no one has used that specific argument yet. I said that the majority of hunters that I had met (that is, some but not all, right? you can comprehend this basic idea?) exhibited those characteristics IMO.
You did point out a counterexample to the suggestion that hunting is a positive and enriching activity (yourself). The problem is that your argument (that hunters are childish barbarians) requires more than simple proof of exception.
You do understand that a counterexample is used to disprove rather than prove, right? He said 'hunting is always x'. I gave an example of when it was not. My argument is then that hunting 'isn't always x', rather than 'hunting is never x'. The clues you missed in my original post are equivocations like 'majority of' and 'in my experience'.
Straw man. Lending guitars != hunters are childish barbarians.
Sigh. A straw man argument proves a different logical form than the original argument to be proved. My example uses the same form, that is counterexample as a disproof of proposed universal modus ponens. I am saying here that since some junkies steal, not all junkies are honest. Likewise, since some hunters are barbaric, not all hunters are civilised (as the OP claimed).
How people choose to use that information is up to them. Most people decide to spurn junkies (perhaps illogically, but there you go).
So you are, what, appealing to stereotype? [...] Usually the stereotype is the part of the discussion that requires argumentative support [...]
The OP defined hunting (and implicitly ascribed attributes consistent with his definition to all hunters). I replied with counterexamples (stereotypical, but counterexamples nonetheless) from my own experience. Symbolically, he wrote 'A x, P(x) -> Q(x)', and I replied 'E x s.t P(x) and ~Q(x)'. Another poster has since pointed out that the hunters I have described may not represent most or even many hunters. This is true but does not invalidate my counterexample.
I would be interested to hear why my statements (pertaining to a subset of hunters) require a rigorous logical argument but the original post (defining hunting for everyone) does not.
That you fit your own stereotype is humorous, but does nothing for your argument.
I made that comment as indemnity against the inevitable bullshit about people who haven't shot a bunny being unable to make an ethical judgement. As you point out, it is irrelevant to the logic of the argument.
What your statement would look like if turned to describe other stereotypes (computer geeks, nerds, programmers, etc.), I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
I'm going to make a guess here, and assume that you probably don't have a lot of conversations about hunting. So most of your sample is probably from #3. That's a skewed sample. [...] Stereotypes are always dangerous when you try to evaluate a social class.
Your point is well made, but, as you say, what I observe -- combined with what little pseudo-objective information I can glean from the media and advocacy groups -- is all I have to go on. At some point we have to generalise or lapse into solipsism. For example, you haven't met the majority of heroin addicts, but I imagine you would apply generalisation based on your experience plus secondary sources, and decide not to lend a random junkie your guitar. That's a stereotype too, but (in my experience) the people who don't apply it end up at the hock shop buying their shit back.
At any rate, my points pertaining to the OP's ideas about hunting (rather than my stereotypes about hunters) still seem valid to me.
Your view seems pretty narrow there. Claws and teeth don't always determine what you can or can't kill. All kinds of factors matter.
Duly noted. Most people just get their food from the shops tho'. I also suspect -- but cannot confirm -- that the original poster buys far more meat than he personally kills. So while I acknowledge that people can kill things if they so choose, I was trying to say that it's not something we have to do in order to eat (which is the case for a lion).
As for the rest of your argument, it's tricky to argue with people who imply that anyone who thinks that someone with different ideas to those they now hold is stupid, so I don't think I'll bother.
Oh go on, give it a try. If I flame you you need not dignify me with a response.
But you admit that it is human nature? What you are trying to say is "I am right, so it must be human nature that is wrong"?
It's arguable as to how pointless violent humans 'naturally' are, but in my opinion there seems to be some built in pointless violence there. The question then is which expressions of violence are right (ethical) and which are wrong.
As part of the social contract we are expected to express our natural sex drive in the form of consensual sex rather than rape. I personally would prefer that our violent instincts be expressed consensually (e.g. through organised martial arts, sports etc) rather than without consent (killing a non-dangerous animal).
So... we should honor animals by processing them in "factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses?" You don't think they'd rather be running around outside?
My personal preference is for them to be running around outside, yes.
What about the overpopulated deer habitats? We should let the environment get overrun with whitetail for lack of natural predators?
If it's a land management issue they can be culled by the apropriate authority. Someone with training and an idea of the desired number would be ideal.
I think it's just the 'grown up' version of pulling the wings off flies; an indulgence of the barbaric side of human nature. I appreciate that you see some kind of spiritual side to it, but the majority of hunters I encounter seem to be pissed idiots, blasting away at roadsigns and leaving beer cans and rubbish everywhere.
If people want to have a spiritual experience or a team building exercise there are numerous civilised alternatives. If people want to understand where their meat comes from, they should tour some factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses. If people want to know their place in the food chain, they should compare their teeth and nails to those of a lion. If people want to honour animals, they should leave them alive rather than spuriously 'thinning out their numbers', South Park style.
And yes, I grew up on a farm and have killed things and eaten them. But I was young and stupid then.
So is Burt Rutan the aerospace equivalent of Jessie James or Paul Teutul ?
Only if he fits his spacecraft with a hydraulic claw that grabs unwanted satellites and hurls them into an onboard trash compactor. And gets some tattoos and girly calendars...
I have a PS2 and a GCN, and I'd go with Echoes, for sure. I enjoyed Metroid Prime way more than GTA3 or Halo, though they were all good games. But they're all different types of game, really. Metroid looks like an FPS from the screenshots, but it's really more of a puzzle / exploration game. Halo is an FPS geared towards multiplayer. GTA3 is, uh, an open-ended crime sim?
I suppose it comes down to whether you prefer single player or multiplayer (if multiplayer, choose Halo 2), and then whether your prefer a slow thoughful game (Metroid) or a fast action game (GTA).
It can be made into one problem. Generate electricity however you like at the plant, then use it to charge up electric cars at the socket. We could get started on this now, then when nuclear / solar / whatever becomes feasible, simply upgrade the power plants.
Of course, you've got to somehow cycle out the legacy internal combustion vehicles, but stuff like biodiesel, ethanol etc can possibly help there, in addition to buyback schemes, tax breaks etc for upgraders to electric.
Well, I suspect we'll never be able to get through to each other, so I'm done with this thread. Just note me down as a dissenter along with the original poster and co, and we'll leave it at that. 5000.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a Firefox extension called Gnusto that lets you play these games from your browser. Have fun : )
The anonymous guy's email address is aidansteele@gmail.com -- could his name be Aidan Steele perhaps? Maybe he rot13-ed twice for added anonymity.
That was a troll, not the real Roland. The real Roland is rpiquepa -- check the accepted submissions.
Cheers.
Let's summarize where we stand so far in a shorthand example: Me: I think my kids should go to school. [...]
You're revising after the fact again, and trying to disguise it beneath an analogy. We are talking about the ethics of hunting, not education. Here is what you said, in black and white... there's no changing it now:
"Logically sound - There are some for whom hunting is a positive, fulfilling, responsible activity, and there are some for whom hunting is childish barbarity."
Now you can more accurately go on with:
You: I think school is reasonable for those who cannot provide any other means of care or education for their children. Therefore...
Me: Hold on a second. School may be a good thing even if other choices are available.
Taking it out of analogy form and back to the original argument, we have me saying (these are quotations) that 'hunting responsibly for the sole purpose of feeding his family' is reasonable, and you replying that '[hunting] may be a good thing even if other choices are available'. Agreed?
I have had sufficient training to recognize ad hominem when I see it, and to know that such attacks are always launched from a position of weakness.
Odd, then, that attack me in just such a manner with your 'never have I seen bullshit so artfully woven' comment, rather than arguing your position. At any rate, I understand that your person does not affect the validity of your argument. That's cool. But you were the person who demanded logical rigour in the first place, and it's a bit hard for me to demonstrate it to you when you aren't familiar with the jargon and maths. Especially when you use words like 'inverse' and 'straw man' that have a very specific meanings. Again, I acknowledge that that doesn't invalidate any argument you may have.
Your core retort depended upon my assumption of responsibility for your words, or to put it simply, attributing statements to me which I did not in fact say. Your ad hominem rider cited instances of my use of certain terms, including 'equivocation', which I did not in fact use.
Let's look at the context in which I used that word:
Me: "The clues you missed in my original post are equivocations like 'majority of' and 'in my experience'".
You: "Okay, let's look for those in your conclusion"
Me: (quoting) "Okay, let's look for [equivocations] in your conclusion"
I trust you will agree that the subject of our exchange was equivocation? I put the word in brackets to indicate that I was replacing the (non context-free) pronoun with the noun to which it referred. The only other noun 'those' could have indicated was 'clues', which has the same meaning in the context (i.e. clues revealing the presence of equivocation).
You wouldn't want the discussion to descend into an evaluation of your reading comprehension skills.
Is that another veiled ad hominem I detect? Let me respond in kind. Yeah, I'd look like I real idiot if I didn't understand that unmodified pronouns implicitly denote the subject of the conversation.
Right, now back to the questions still unanswered:
And now to the argument at hand, which I understand currently to be '[hunting] may be a good thing even if other choices are available'. Please correct this or subsititute it with an argument of your choice if I have it wrong.
I think that if hunting is not required to support / protect life (and it rarely is), then shooting a non-threatening animal is needlessly cruel (or barbaric as I put i
Sure, that's almost certainly correct, however that doesn't have all that much bearing on the food chain argument. I'd say that if you look at humans as a society, we can eat whatever we choose pretty much, so that puts us at the top of the food chain.
Okay, conceded.
This may be true [hunting as an indulgence of barbarism] - but so what? People need outlets. I program computers, or whatever. Other people may go hunting. I don't see that as a bad thing.
I think hunting and (recreational) coding are scratching two different itches: bloodlust and creativity respectively. Further, coding is bereft of lethal cruelty whereas hunting, perhaps, is not.
Of course, whether sport hunting is cruel is opinion and debatable. However, given that skeet-shooting, target shooting, biathlon, paintball etc are sports undisputably lacking in lethal cruelty, there are alternatives for the sporting shooter who wants to relax of a weekend. Likewise, if agression must be indulged there are consensual contact sports such as boxing.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that there are non-contentious outlets for people who need them.
Don't forget, your sample is self-selecting. The 'proper' hunters don't litter, don't shoot roadsigns, and so on. The ones you see are the ones who bring themselves to your attention by being annoying.
That makes sense, but it's far from the spirit warrior description of hunting made by the original poster. It's then an argument of quantification: how many hunters are responsible and how many are not? What are their reasons for hunting? And so on. The point being that the OP's definition of hunting does not cover all hunters, and IMO probably doesn't even cover most.
That's not what I said. Read my post again. Someone hunting to feed his family is an example of responsible hunting that I gave in support of your comment that 'there are some for whom hunting is a positive, fulfilling, responsible activity, and there are some for whom hunting is childish barbarity' is a logically sound argument. You offered a reasonable argument. I agreed, and now you attack the argument as unreasonable. Make up your mind.
You reconstructed a new argument based on that premise, and attacked its inverse (those not hunting out of direct need for food are unreasonable). Ergo, straw man, again. Sigh indeed.
No. You offered p V q as a logical argument. I agreed. You then switched to arguing against q->~p. There's your straw man. Incidentally, the inverse of 'hunters are either responsible or barbaric' is 'hunters are neither responsible nor barbaric'.
Okay, let's look for [equivocations] in your conclusion
The first two words: 'I think'. It's an opinion not a proof.
Now it's time for you to respond to the points that you have been unable to answer so far:
- The hunters I have described may not represent most or even many hunters. This is true but does not invalidate my counterexample. True or false?
- My statements require a rigorous logical proof, but the original poster's do not. Why?
- You use the words 'inverse', 'counterexample', 'proof', 'premise', 'straw man', 'equivocation', 'argument' and 'logically sound' withoput understanding their formal meanings. You have had no academic training in the field of logic. True or false?
Deeply interested in your reply.Logically sound - There are some for whom hunting is a positive, fulfilling, responsible activity, and there are some for whom hunting is childish barbarity.
That seems reasonable, but I have yet to see an example of the former. The form is sound (p V q), but none one in this thread has actually used that argument until now. I'm sure there's someone living in a remote area hunting responsibly for the sole purpose of feeding his family, but I'm equally sure that that person is in the tiny minority.
Logically unsound - No, all hunters are childish barbarians.
Again, the form is logically sound (p->q), and again, no one has used that specific argument yet. I said that the majority of hunters that I had met (that is, some but not all, right? you can comprehend this basic idea?) exhibited those characteristics IMO.
You did point out a counterexample to the suggestion that hunting is a positive and enriching activity (yourself). The problem is that your argument (that hunters are childish barbarians) requires more than simple proof of exception.
You do understand that a counterexample is used to disprove rather than prove, right? He said 'hunting is always x'. I gave an example of when it was not. My argument is then that hunting 'isn't always x', rather than 'hunting is never x'. The clues you missed in my original post are equivocations like 'majority of' and 'in my experience'.
Straw man. Lending guitars != hunters are childish barbarians.
Sigh. A straw man argument proves a different logical form than the original argument to be proved. My example uses the same form, that is counterexample as a disproof of proposed universal modus ponens. I am saying here that since some junkies steal, not all junkies are honest. Likewise, since some hunters are barbaric, not all hunters are civilised (as the OP claimed).
How people choose to use that information is up to them. Most people decide to spurn junkies (perhaps illogically, but there you go).
So you are, what, appealing to stereotype? [...] Usually the stereotype is the part of the discussion that requires argumentative support [...]
The OP defined hunting (and implicitly ascribed attributes consistent with his definition to all hunters). I replied with counterexamples (stereotypical, but counterexamples nonetheless) from my own experience. Symbolically, he wrote 'A x, P(x) -> Q(x)', and I replied 'E x s.t P(x) and ~Q(x)'. Another poster has since pointed out that the hunters I have described may not represent most or even many hunters. This is true but does not invalidate my counterexample.
I would be interested to hear why my statements (pertaining to a subset of hunters) require a rigorous logical argument but the original post (defining hunting for everyone) does not.
That you fit your own stereotype is humorous, but does nothing for your argument.
I made that comment as indemnity against the inevitable bullshit about people who haven't shot a bunny being unable to make an ethical judgement. As you point out, it is irrelevant to the logic of the argument.
What your statement would look like if turned to describe other stereotypes (computer geeks, nerds, programmers, etc.), I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
See this comment for my boilerplate reply.
Read another way: Every good idea was once new... therefore every new idea is good...
The two statements are not equivalent, because you have made the converse error. Please read this for details.
I'm going to make a guess here, and assume that you probably don't have a lot of conversations about hunting. So most of your sample is probably from #3. That's a skewed sample. [...] Stereotypes are always dangerous when you try to evaluate a social class.
Your point is well made, but, as you say, what I observe -- combined with what little pseudo-objective information I can glean from the media and advocacy groups -- is all I have to go on. At some point we have to generalise or lapse into solipsism. For example, you haven't met the majority of heroin addicts, but I imagine you would apply generalisation based on your experience plus secondary sources, and decide not to lend a random junkie your guitar. That's a stereotype too, but (in my experience) the people who don't apply it end up at the hock shop buying their shit back.
At any rate, my points pertaining to the OP's ideas about hunting (rather than my stereotypes about hunters) still seem valid to me.
Your view seems pretty narrow there. Claws and teeth don't always determine what you can or can't kill. All kinds of factors matter.
Duly noted. Most people just get their food from the shops tho'. I also suspect -- but cannot confirm -- that the original poster buys far more meat than he personally kills. So while I acknowledge that people can kill things if they so choose, I was trying to say that it's not something we have to do in order to eat (which is the case for a lion).
As for the rest of your argument, it's tricky to argue with people who imply that anyone who thinks that someone with different ideas to those they now hold is stupid, so I don't think I'll bother.
Oh go on, give it a try. If I flame you you need not dignify me with a response.
But you admit that it is human nature? What you are trying to say is "I am right, so it must be human nature that is wrong"?
It's arguable as to how pointless violent humans 'naturally' are, but in my opinion there seems to be some built in pointless violence there. The question then is which expressions of violence are right (ethical) and which are wrong.
As part of the social contract we are expected to express our natural sex drive in the form of consensual sex rather than rape. I personally would prefer that our violent instincts be expressed consensually (e.g. through organised martial arts, sports etc) rather than without consent (killing a non-dangerous animal).
So... we should honor animals by processing them in "factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses?" You don't think they'd rather be running around outside?
My personal preference is for them to be running around outside, yes.
What about the overpopulated deer habitats? We should let the environment get overrun with whitetail for lack of natural predators?
If it's a land management issue they can be culled by the apropriate authority. Someone with training and an idea of the desired number would be ideal.
I think it's just the 'grown up' version of pulling the wings off flies; an indulgence of the barbaric side of human nature. I appreciate that you see some kind of spiritual side to it, but the majority of hunters I encounter seem to be pissed idiots, blasting away at roadsigns and leaving beer cans and rubbish everywhere.
If people want to have a spiritual experience or a team building exercise there are numerous civilised alternatives. If people want to understand where their meat comes from, they should tour some factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses. If people want to know their place in the food chain, they should compare their teeth and nails to those of a lion. If people want to honour animals, they should leave them alive rather than spuriously 'thinning out their numbers', South Park style.
And yes, I grew up on a farm and have killed things and eaten them. But I was young and stupid then.
It looks like a teacup... remember that the infinite improbability drive was 'built' with the aid of a nice hot cup of tea.
Yeah, but that's an example of them being useful. It doesn't really make them esthetically "interesting".
In that case I refer you to the fundamental theorum of arithmetic, which I think is pretty interesting.
Read Penn Jillette's great explanation for details.
I had a 'soarn eagle' once, but a liberal application of aloe vera soon removed the stinging redness.
He also says in the camel book that it stands for Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister : )
I think you've just been slashdotted : )
I wanted to write this in your Journal, but there's nothing there to attach a comment to. So instead, here we go in offtopic land:
Your Slashdot fixing Firefox extension is all that and a big bag o' chips. My hat is off to you, sir.
So is Burt Rutan the aerospace equivalent of Jessie James or Paul Teutul ?
Only if he fits his spacecraft with a hydraulic claw that grabs unwanted satellites and hurls them into an onboard trash compactor. And gets some tattoos and girly calendars...
I have a PS2 and a GCN, and I'd go with Echoes, for sure. I enjoyed Metroid Prime way more than GTA3 or Halo, though they were all good games. But they're all different types of game, really. Metroid looks like an FPS from the screenshots, but it's really more of a puzzle / exploration game. Halo is an FPS geared towards multiplayer. GTA3 is, uh, an open-ended crime sim?
I suppose it comes down to whether you prefer single player or multiplayer (if multiplayer, choose Halo 2), and then whether your prefer a slow thoughful game (Metroid) or a fast action game (GTA).
It can be made into one problem. Generate electricity however you like at the plant, then use it to charge up electric cars at the socket. We could get started on this now, then when nuclear / solar / whatever becomes feasible, simply upgrade the power plants.
Of course, you've got to somehow cycle out the legacy internal combustion vehicles, but stuff like biodiesel, ethanol etc can possibly help there, in addition to buyback schemes, tax breaks etc for upgraders to electric.
Well, I suspect we'll never be able to get through to each other, so I'm done with this thread. Just note me down as a dissenter along with the original poster and co, and we'll leave it at that. 5000.